Military Service

[Sandy]

[quote name='SunfallE'][COLOR="RoyalBlue"][FONT="Lucida Sans Unicode"]Professional killers? I honestly wonder how much you really know about the military. No one is turned into a "professional" killer. I've had friends who served and learned to be doctors and other professions within the military.[/QUOTE][/COLOR][/FONT]

Of course I know there are different positions inside the army you can train into. But when it all boils down, soldiers are trained to kill, or at least suffocate resistance with violence, not let's say diplomacy.

[quote name='SunfallE'][COLOR="RoyalBlue"][FONT="Lucida Sans Unicode"]You make it sound like everyone who isn't a pacifist has an arsenal in their home. Many of us rely on the regular police force and other law enforcement to keep us safe, the only real difference is that the military is on a country level instead of a local one. To advocate against the military, is to advocate against law and order altogether.[/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE]

No, I am not an anarchist. XD Sure, if my country was at war, my opinions could be different. But living in a safe country (in both local and international level), I can hold on to my ideals. That's a luxury I know many people don't have.

[quote name='SunfallE'][COLOR="RoyalBlue"][FONT="Lucida Sans Unicode"]And humanitarian aid can't change someone's viewpoint. To think that by sending aid people would not fight is naive. Honestly, if that actually worked, it would have already happened. I really do not appreciate the assumption that just because the military exists, we must therefore be heartless and only respond to violence with violence. That too is rather naive, I support the military because it is like any law enforcement agency. I don't think it's perfect, but at the same time, it doesn't mean I blindly support violence in general.[/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE]

Ideals [I]are[/I] naïve, otherwise they wouldn't be ideals. But without ideals, what would this world be? No one would be willing to promote change, and thus no change would ever happen.

I've repeatedly said that I know the realities of life (I know that even the puny Finland could have use for an army at some day and age), but even those realities couldn't make me change my ideals except under the most absurd, sci-fi horror type of situation where it's the fate of the world vs. killing a guy, which I'm glad doesn't happen in the real world (or at least in my part of the world).

[B]MoyakuKeramushe:[/B] I hope that answers your question. I don't condone to those black-and-white situations, because they're not realistic, and if someone is really motivated by such a scenario, then they obviously aren't very realistic either. That's why I consider these "pre-emptive wars" a load of bull: you can't help but to hurt several innocent people in order to get one "bad guy".

[B]Aberinkula:[/B] Although a perfect world peace can't ever be obtained because people will always believe in different things, it doesn't mean it's useless to promote peace and non-violence. One can do it on a local level, and see the results themselves. For example, I currently work in a project at an elementary school, where one of our jobs is to prevent and intervene to bullying. There's a big leap from bullying to killing or waging war, but the mentality is pretty much the same: "I can do whatever I want to people I don't agree with".

As for a final note, I'm really not expecting anybody to change their views about anything with my words, I'm just trying to bring an alternative view to the discussion. Sure, I live in a secure country with an army, but if that means that I have no right to be against warfare without being called a hypocrite, then so be it.

[Allamorph]

[quote name='Sandy]Ideals [I]are[/I'] naïve, otherwise they wouldn't be ideals.[/quote]
[FONT=Arial]Ehh, not all the time. Ideals are not dependent upon one's experience or lack thereof, they are abstract concepts one chooses to hold onto and/or strive for.

What's amusing to [I]me[/I] in this thread is the rather extreme stances taken on military establishments. So far I see two views: fight, or don't fight.

I take more of a progressive line of thought. I am also a peaceful-natured person; I hate conflict and avoid it at all cost. But I also have lines I will not allow to be crossed. They are difficult to cross, so I have lots of room to simply laugh and pass stuff by; but when I am pressed, I will not yield.

There is a large difference between violence for pleasure or retaliation, and violence when necessary. Not too many can see it, though.[/FONT]

[Starwind]

This thread sure has taken a hell of a spin since I first posted here. I gotta say that some of the recent discussion has upset me quite a bit. The notion that those of us in the military are warmongers and violent killers is simply unfounded.

True, you are trained to use weapons of lethal force, but the fact of the matter is, that neither myself or any of the other 400 soilders in my unit have fired a single bullet since we arrived here. That's not to say we haven't had to fight. We had a riot just this morning. So we went with standard procedure. We used a simple show of force and standard riot control. Which is basically form up a front line to block rocks and other things they might be throwing and lob tear gas at them til they fall back.

I do carry a rifle, but I also carry pepper spray, a baton, and a tazer. Of which, I can only use my rifle when the first three fail to work. And trust me, I've never had to go beuond the pepper spray.

Truth is, off all the jobs you can do in the military, very few of them require you to fight and possible kill someone. More then 3/4's are whats called combat support. This is things like transport, medical, communication, engineering, and other such things.

[Horendithas]

[COLOR="Indigo"][quote name='Sandy;809887]Of course I know there are different positions inside the army you can train into. But when it all boils down, soldiers are trained to kill, or at least suffocate resistance with violence, not let's say diplomacy.[/QUOTE]Wrong, the military or rather war is for many countries a last resort. Their presence is often used as a deterrent, a means to say don't push or attempt to control us or others because we won't accept that. If it was really used to suffocate resistance, then you obviously don't bother to read up on standard procedures for most forms of law enforcement. And that is to use [I]non-lethal methods first,[/I] to break up problems, long before the actual fighting begins.[quote name='Sandy'']No, I am not an anarchist. XD Sure, if my country was at war, my opinions could be different. But living in a safe country (in both local and international level), I can hold on to my ideals. That's a luxury I know many people don't have.[/quote]News flash Sandy, many of us also live in a safe country and what dangers we face come from our fellow citizens, not some other country that requires a military presence to end it. We have our problems and issues of crime, but guess what? The fact that we have a military has nothing to do with whether or not our cities are safe since they aren't the one's providing the security.

So harping on living in safe country isn't really relevant, other than the international level. And you know, no offense, but those other countries that have those[I] larger[/I] standing armies, just happen to deter those who would consider a tiny spot like Finland an easy target. I mean, even if you called in reserves, it's a harsh reality that by having those relations, it helps to cut down on unnecessary conflict.

We have the same luxury of holding to our ideals, you just choose to not see it. We have similar ideals in wanting a world without war, where people can live in peace. We just realize that with any ideal, the other side of the coin must be present. So that those millions of citizens living in peace can get as close to them as possible.[quote name='Sandy']I've repeatedly said that I know the realities of life (I know that even the puny Finland could have use for an army at some day and age), but even those realities couldn't make me change my ideals except under the most absurd, sci-fi horror type of situation where it's the fate of the world vs. killing a guy, which I'm glad doesn't happen in the real world (or at least in my part of the world).[/QUOTE]I sincerely hope you never find yourself in the position of having to make that choice. Because until that moment happens, no one really knows for sure what they'll do. And thinking it never will or that the idea is absurd, is also naive. Ironically, your chances of facing that are higher outside of a military conflict and more likely in a rural setting.[/COLOR]

[Sabrina]

[FONT="Tahoma"][quote name='Sandy;809848]I guess I'll be the one to break the nauseating consensus of this thread. Seriously guys, can't we get a good debate about [I]anything[/I] anymore? XP[/QUOTE]I know you are only kidding, but you do have to kind of laugh at the irony of that statement, because having a consensus or rather agreement of opinions is one of the very foundations of peaceful co-existence in the first place. ^_~ Not that debating isn?t fun, but it?s also nice to know others have similar values and thoughts. Anyway? on to the serious stuff! The rest of the post! :p [quote name='Sandy'']Jokes aside, I'm a pacifist, period. I do not believe waging war is an answer to anything, and to me the military is a place where people are brain-washed to do the bidding of the warmongers. I've met people who have gone to the army and come back with a part of their personality stripped away - their values and attitudes have changed towards those they were taught at the military service. Some people boast about their time in the service in public, but when I've spoken to them in private, they admit that it was the worst time of their lives - and they only train in Finnish forests, not in a real battlefield.[/quote]I think perhaps you are confusing how the military is done in your country, something I will address in a moment. But you see, in other countries, like the US, it is a place where one chooses to go and they are not required to stay. In fact plenty of people try it, realize they don?t fit and leave. No one makes them stay and honestly, brainwashing? That?s subjective and only true if one holds the same pacifist views that you have.

Also, you can?t make the mistake of taking the opinions of a few who say their time spent serving was the worst in their lives; and expect it to hold any substance in a system that is completely different. It's not the same here, so our opinions have a different meaning which you can't just apply across the board without taking that into consideration.

So that analogy cannot really hold any substance at all other than in Finland or countries that are similar. Because it suffers from two flaws. [B]One:[/B] different countries. (as I just mentioned) [B]Two:[/B] you need more than just the statements of your friends to declare it was the worst time of their lives. I want to see the opinions of those in your country who do not agree with your view since I am sure they exist.

Finally, for this part, I fail to see the relevancy of where their training was located in this argument, I thought the idea was to get training, [I]outside of a [/I]battle field. It would be kind of silly to train them in a real one when there are no battles going on. [quote name='Sandy']See, unlike in the US, going to the army is almost obligatory here in Finland to all young men. There's the option of going to a civilian work service (which I chose, and haven't regretted a day) which lasts thirteen months, as opposed to the six or eleven months spent in the army. You can also get exempted, or downright refuse (in which case you're in for six months in prison). There's no real monetary benefits for going to the army, no paid schooling (since it's free here anyway) or secured jobs.[/QUOTE]Now this is where you view gets skewered, because your opinion is based on how it?s done in your country. It sounds like you should be arguing with the people who have a voice in making change where you live, because no matter what any of us say, the government of Finland isn?t going to be affected.

Also, why would we change our opinions when not only is the very system different, but we like having that choice? Military service here means that being poor doesn?t stop you from having a place to not only get training but get paid educated, etc. Because unlike Finland, schooling here is NOT free. It?s expensive and a lot of Americans can?t afford it or end up getting student loans to cover that expense. Though even if we had free schooling, I?d still support having a military. [quote name='Sandy;809848]Despite my high ideals, I'm also a realist, and I know war is still the way things are handled in many countries, and that will probably never change. People still have to defend their countries, that's why a small and recluse country like mine still has a public army. But I also know that if our neighbor Russia would decide to attack us, we wouldn't stand a chance. The technology has developed far beyond the days of the Winter War, when the puny Finnish soldiers kept Finland independent by fending off the mighty Russian army. And oh the amount of glory that has been attached to those events![/QUOTE]And why shouldn?t they attach glory to it? Those people who kept Finland independent did so at the very risk of what many people hold dear, their own lives. You yourself owe your current liberty to that. It?s one thing to want to push for a time when war isn?t needed, but it?s kind of disrespectful to mock those who helped to make it possible for us to be free to have those opinions and ideals in the first place.[QUOTE=Sandy']It's the same kind of glory I see being attached to the soldiers in iraq and Afghanistan. Many people say that if you're against the war, you are against the soldiers. Which is totally paradoxal, since I don't want people to die, nor kill others.

So despite what the realities are, I will hold on to my own pacifism. If we go to war during my lifetime, I refuse to die holding a gun. I will die so that no other person has had to die by my hands.[/QUOTE]I don?t think so, I think you?re unfairly dismissing those who served based on past war examples. And if someone says you are against the soldiers if you are against the war is confused. There?s nothing wrong with desiring peace, or disagreeing with a war. I see that more of disagreeing with the government or higher ups who made that decision. That's out of the soldiers control.[quote name='Sandy']So despite what the realities are, I will hold on to my own pacifism. If we go to war during my lifetime, I refuse to die holding a gun. I will die so that no other person has had to die by my hands.[/QUOTE]It's a pretty sentiment and if more people refused to kill the world would be a better place. However, it's no different than refusing to let others take advantage of you only in a more extreme example. I can tell you right now that though it I would loathe to do so, I would not watch someone die if I could stop it. I love life too much to let someone take it away. Which is worse, killing one, or doing nothing and allowing your entire family and yourself to die?

Anyway, I'm not going to address your other replies since they were between you and other members and their responses cover some of what I would have said. [/FONT]

[Sandy]

[quote name='indifference'][COLOR="Indigo"]We have the same luxury of holding to our ideals, you just choose to not see it. We have similar ideals in wanting a world without war, where people can live in peace. We just realize that with any ideal, the other side of the coin must be present. So that those millions of citizens living in peace can get as close to them as possible.[/COLOR][/QUOTE]

I'm sorry, Crystia, but who said I was referring to the US when I talked about a "country in war"? I meant the countries that really are [I]in[/I] war, and the last time I checked, there were no battles in the United States. I can imagine it's really very difficult to remain a pacifist when you see your neighborhood and loved ones being blasted away. [I]That[/I]'s the luxury I was talking about.

Who are these "we" you're talking about, anyway? I can only speak for my own self, and I can tell you there are plenty of patriots, nationalists and warmongers in Finland as well. My views of resenting the army are usually scorned upon in here, so this discussion isn't about "the people in my country think this vs. the people in your country think that". Reading back my previous posts, I realize I made some sweeping generalizations, and I apologize for them, but I'm really not trying to make this about the differences of nations, just about the differences of individual people living in different places and situations.

[Sabrina]

[FONT="Tahoma"][quote name='Sandy;809905]I'm sorry, Crystia, but who said I was referring to the US when I talked about a "country in war"? I meant the countries that really are [I]in[/I] war, and the last time I checked, there were no battles in the United States. I can imagine it's really very difficult to remain a pacifist when you see your neighborhood and loved ones being blasted away. [I]That[/I]'s the luxury I was talking about.[/QUOTE]Though not addressing me directly, that still holds true. That luxury does hold true for places like the US. Though seeing that you did not clarify, I'm sure you can see why it was brought up.[quote name='Sandy'']Who are these "we" you're talking about, anyway? I can only speak for my own self, and I can tell you there are plenty of patriots, nationalists and warmongers in Finland as well. My views of resenting the army are usually scorned upon in here, so this discussion isn't about "the people in my country think this vs. the people in your country think that". Reading back my previous posts, I realize I made some sweeping generalizations, and I apologize for them, but I'm really not trying to make this about the differences of nations, just about the differences of individual people living in different places and situations.[/quote]:p Seems like I addressed your generalizations, because like you just said, [U]you did do that[/U]. My opinion still holds though, I believe in pacifist ideals in the sense that I prefer to not go to war. But I don't hold them enough to simply stand by and do nothing if war should happen to break out. So therefore, I support the military. What I would like to see change is the governments that would use them to oppress others, because in my opinion, that's the real problem, not the miltary system, but those leading it. [/FONT]

[Aberinkula]

[quote name='Sandy'][/COLOR][/FONT]

[B]Aberinkula:[/B] Although a perfect world peace can't ever be obtained because people will always believe in different things, it doesn't mean it's useless to promote peace and non-violence. One can do it on a local level, and see the results themselves. For example, I currently work in a project at an elementary school, where one of our jobs is to prevent and intervene to bullying. There's a big leap from bullying to killing or waging war, but the mentality is pretty much the same: "I can do whatever I want to people I don't agree with".

[/QUOTE]

[COLOR="DarkSlateGray"][SIZE="1"]I said 'world-peace' I never once mentioned local peace nor did I say that it was useless to promote local peace. It is useless to imagine mass, worldly peace, but locally is another story I don't feel like touching at the moment.[/SIZE][/COLOR]

[Riku]

[FONT="Tahoma"][SIZE="1"][COLOR="Navy"]To be brutally honest, when I get older, I don't want to have to do anything with the military.

I'm not saying that I don't respect/support our soldiers in the war or anybody that's in the military at all. My dad's in the Air Force, so that automatically makes me an Air Force brat. What I really don't want to go through with is actually working in the military at all.

Sure, for different people, different things work out for them. I just know that I'm not cut for all the rules, strictness of people above you, moving around, doing something I don't really want to do, etc. I mean, people who have relationships with military soldiers already know how hard it is because of the fact that they have to move around and not being able to see them for long periods of time.

I've just lived with military for some years now and I just don't want to be involved more than what I have to be, that's all.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

[Binxy]

[SIZE="1"]Personally, I have no problem with the military. They have a purpose and they serve it. But I do despise their reason for having a purpose. I am completely against war in general. If two countries can not settle differences or conflicts by simply meeting and talking it through, then they have no moral respect for the people they have charge over. And me being in the U.S. makes me detest the current war in Iraq even more. Though I'm not one of those, "Bring our troops home!" people who protest. At the moment, they need to stay, but so much could have been saved if no one had gone in the first place.

I do plan on serving in the military though. In a matter of one or two years, I plan to enlist in the Air Force and work toward Vehicle and Vehicular Equipment Maintenance. Even so, I don't plan to spend much time doing so after my time is up. My career path is focused on childhood education. I love being around kids and very much want to work in an elementary school as a teacher.

For whoever chooses to go into the military, all the love to you. Anyone who has the patience, endurance, and determination to push themselves is all the worthy. But to the jerks who do so and eventually make higher ups and have no respect for anyone under them, -enter vulgar language here-. If you have respect for me, push me, and push to make me do something, I have no problem. But if you care nothing about me, punish me for your own satisfaction, and see me as pathetic in your eyes, you have no right to be where you are.[/SIZE]

[Aaryanna]

[COLOR="DarkGreen"][FONT="Book Antiqua"]Personally I am not interested in being a part of the military... once I'm old enough that is. But for those who are interested, I see no reason why it's not a good thing. And I think others here have stated reasons as to why well enough already.

I have one question though and that's to wonder why someone always ends up jumping on the stereotype bandwagon of accusing the military of being nothing more than a tool for war. Because if you stop and think about it, the military spends far more time not being at war than they ever do engaging in war.

I find it hard to believe that they are just twitting their thumbs and not doing useful peacetime activities in addition to their training. It's easy to go hunting and finding examples of where those services are put to use for humanitarian aid as well as stuff that benefits our society.

I think this article from back in 1924 proves my point since it is but one of [I]many[/I] examples I found by doing a little searching: [URL="http://blog.modernmechanix.com/2007/02/21/keeping-the-army-busy-in-peace-time/"][U]Peacetime Benefits[/U][/URL] So to think that the military is only for war is in my opinion, extremely short sighted.[/FONT][/COLOR]

[Allamorph]

[quote name='Sandy']I'm sorry, Crystia, but who said I was referring to the US when I talked about a "country in war"?[/quote]
[FONT=Arial]Well, considering the massive amount of lunacy embroiling the country over our presence in Iraq?on both sides?I'd say her assumption was understandable. Don't get huffy. (^_^)

[QUOTE][I]but I'm really not trying to make this about the differences of nations, just about the differences of individual people living in different places and situations.[/I][/QUOTE]
Unfortunately, the individual aspect is rather irrelevant?at least, in the more argumentative sense you seem to be trying to drum up. (^_^) With such a broad range of individual opinions on the subject, becoming vehement on the topic seems to be rather a waste of time, wouldn't you say?

Also, why do you make such a fuss over your beliefs, when you admit that they might change with changing circumstances? If they are so (potentially) transient, why bother defending them? Why not just point them out and have done?


Ironically, this thread was far more peaceful until a "pacifist" showed up.[/good-humored ribbing][/FONT]

[James]

[font=franklin gothic medium]I think you are right, Allamorph. I think it's important to be able to respect and express a range of views - including those that acknowledge the legitimate role of the military at the present time (whether engaged in war or not).

I personally believe that military service offers more to an individual and a society than "just more soldiers". In many countries, the military is far more a part of the community than that - which is why, to some extent, generalizations don't work terribly well.

And then of course there are countries like Switzerland, which have a sophisticated military force, despite their neutral status in international affairs.

So yeah. One experience is one experience...it is a big mistake to over-simplify these issues.

I think my biggest gripe when it comes to these discussions is the lack of historical perspective. When I was at University I came across many "pacifists", yet none of them were [i]true[/i] pacifists. None of them knew a single thing about history or about the context through which the military has been engaged historically.

I feel that reasonable debates can't occur without reasoned points of view on all sides.[/font]

[Sabrina]

[FONT="Tahoma"][quote name='Aaryanna'][COLOR="DarkGreen"][FONT="Book Antiqua"] Because if you stop and think about it, the military spends far more time not being at war than they ever do engaging in war. [/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE]This is especially true of the United States Coast Guard. I'll borrow from wiki since it's simpler that way, but as it says...

[INDENT]When not in war, the Coast Guard has duties that include maritime law enforcement, maintaining aids to navigation, marine safety, and both military and civilian search and rescue--all in addition to its typical homeland security and military duties, such as port security. The service's decentralized organization and readiness for missions that can occur at any time on any day, is often lauded for making it highly effective, extremely agile and very adaptable in a broad range of emergencies.[/INDENT]
This branch is never just training for war, they're deployed [I]every single day[/I] in non-war activities as listed. Far more than just a service for wartime use. It's really easy to look at the military and not bother to look beyond the simple meaning or actual use it's put to on a day to day basis.[/FONT]

[James]

[font=franklin gothic medium]There are some excellent examples here. Another would be the Royal Australian Navy, which is obviously not at war most of the time.

Those naval vessels that remain at home bear a similar role to the US Coast Guard - along with customs-specific craft, our Naval vessels are regularly involved with customs and border security-related matters. Naval vessels are also sometimes engaged in searches for missing persons (although I'd say this usually falls back to the SES or some other related service).

Then there are anti-proflieration efforts as well as security support for much smaller pacific nations that don't have their own naval forces. There are probably too many aspects to list here, but I think the point still comes across.

Still, I suppose the point is that military organisations often play other important roles in society outside simply "warmongering".[/font]

[Sandy]

[quote name='Allamorph'][FONT=Arial]Ironically, this thread was far more peaceful until a "pacifist" showed up.[/good-humored ribbing][/FONT][/QUOTE]

At least I got some real discussion going on after all those posts that basically repeated the same arguments over and over again. ;D

James, do you really expect everybody who has an ideal to be totally indulged by it? I think it's saying a bit too much that one cannot be a pacifist if he or she doesn't know the history of the idealism. To me, pacifism means I don't do violence, but I will work my way out of situations by other means. I [I]have[/I] done violence in my childhood, and I'm from a family with a violent past, but these have only strengthened my views. Do I really have to worship Gandhi or something to be allowed to call myself that?

Like I said earlier, I really don't know what I'd do in a true, dire, back-against-the-wall situation, but that goes to everybody else as well. In those type of situations, I can't imagine I'd be thinking "Oh wait, I have this philosophy! Damn, I can't defend myself...". It's the same with those of you who are believing Christians: one of your commandments tells you not to kill, but in certain situations the large majority of you probably would. Does that make you any less of a Christian? No.

But I'm steering away from the military discussion here. Sure, the military in Finland is prepared to help in crises and disasters other than war as well, but since it's mostly comprised of normal guys and girls with only six months of training at the minimum, I don't think they're very equipped to handle that sort of events.

Politically-wise, I wouldn't actually terminate the army, but I'd prefer to see one with hired personel motivated by the right reasons instead of a ragtag group of immature youngsters thinking that no man is a true man if he hasn't crawled in a forest with a big gun. I would want to see that the young men of Finland were given a true choice of how to serve their country.

If you thought that in a war situation I'd just sit tight and do nothing, you're mistaken. I'm a professional social care worker, so I'd be of much more use in taking care of children, old people, the disabled etc. than rotting in prison for not going to the battlefront. But unfortunately those in power don't see that, because they were all raised to be "true men".

[Horendithas]

[COLOR="Indigo"][quote name='Sandy;810027]I would want to see that the young men of Finland were given a true choice of how to serve their country.[/QUOTE]If they have no choice at all, I can see why you'd want them to have one. However, I don't know enough about your political structure to really give an opinion.[quote name='Sandy'']If you thought that in a war situation I'd just sit tight and do nothing, you're mistaken. I'm a professional social care worker, so I'd be of much more use in taking care of children, old people, the disabled etc. than rotting in prison for not going to the battlefront. But unfortunately those in power don't see that, because they were all raised to be "true men".[/quote]I think people were talking about a kill or be killed situation, not in general should a war break out.

Also, in peace time those in the US may have a choice, but all men have to register. Should war come up and a draft is needed, they have no choice but to answer that call to serve. Except for women, we're exempt and not required to register. [/COLOR]

[Allamorph]

[quote name='Sandy']At least I got some real discussion going on after all those posts that basically repeated the same arguments over and over again. ;D[/quote]
[FONT=Arial]Meh; you see real discussion, I see pointless bickering over minor differences and unnecessarily constructed hypothetical situations?again, on both sides.

To-may-to, to-mah-to.


Oh, and you wink far too much, buddy-boy. You should try a good Cheshire grin once in a while. Feels great.[/more ribbing]


[B]Edit:[/B] I swear, [COLOR=Indigo]Indi[/COLOR], we must be telepathically linked. [COLOR="Indigo"][[SIZE="1"]indeed[/SIZE][/COLOR]] Probably explains the sigs.[/FONT]

[Sandy]

[quote name='Allamorph'][FONT=Arial]Meh; you see real discussion, I see pointless bickering over minor differences and unnecessarily constructed hypothetical situations—again, on both sides.

To-may-to, to-mah-to.[/FONT][/QUOTE]

Well, why don't we all just shut up, then, with our poor discussion skills. That'll turn this board into a fun place. ;D

[James]

[quote]James, do you really expect everybody who has an ideal to be totally indulged by it? I think it's saying a bit too much that one cannot be a pacifist if he or she doesn't know the history of the idealism. To me, pacifism means I don't do violence, but I will work my way out of situations by other means. I have done violence in my childhood, and I'm from a family with a violent past, but these have only strengthened my views. Do I really have to worship Gandhi or something to be allowed to call myself that?
[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]I don't think you understood what I meant. I wasn't referring to a history of pacifism.

What I was referring to is a knowledge of [i]history[/i]. In other words, a deeper understanding of the political realities of the world - especially related to why wars even happen in the first place and what the outcomes are.

Those on the left (as pacifists generally are) tend to frequently point out that the world is "not black and white" - that there are many perspectives and shades of grey. Many of these same people do not apply that logic to war or conflict.

The simple statement "violence is bad" is almost not worth mentioning, because I don't think you'll find many reasonable people who will argue that point.

Those who either talk in favour of a particular war - or who understand the nature of conflict and why it isn't always avoidable - are not necessarily "pro violence".

Unfortunately, people who try to apply reason or middle-ground to these issues are often simply called "warmongers" and that's that. This characterisation obviously skates over the surface and doesn't address the issue in a truly critical way.[/font]

[quote]Like I said earlier, I really don't know what I'd do in a true, dire, back-against-the-wall situation, but that goes to everybody else as well. In those type of situations, I can't imagine I'd be thinking "Oh wait, I have this philosophy! Damn, I can't defend myself...". It's the same with those of you who are believing Christians: one of your commandments tells you not to kill, but in certain situations the large majority of you probably would. Does that make you any less of a Christian? No.[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Bingo. I think you hit the nail on the head here.

It's one thing to have a non-violent philosophy and to object to war. That's fine and I don't think anyone would say that war is good or even desirable.

However, even the most passionate believers of non-violent conflict resolution need to apply realistic logic to specific situations at some stage. While you and I might have a certain ideal, others in the world do not - in many cases, conflict resolution simply can't function as a neat textbook example.

That may seem obvious, but I do think it's an important point to make.[/font]

[quote]Politically-wise, I wouldn't actually terminate the army, but I'd prefer to see one with hired personel motivated by the right reasons instead of a ragtag group of immature youngsters thinking that no man is a true man if he hasn't crawled in a forest with a big gun. I would want to see that the young men of Finland were given a true choice of how to serve their country.[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Well, yeah... I would like to see this too.

I mean, I don't like the thought that someone joins the military for some idiotic reason like "I need to hold a big gun and be a tough man".

I am sure, however, that [i]most[/i] military recruits do not join for that reason. After all, if you're joining an organisation where you may one day need to give your life... I think it is safe to assume that your motivations are a little deeper than simple machoism.

I suppose that when I look at the military, I don't make the assumption that they are a ragtag group of macho youngsters. At least, in Australia, I know that 99.9% of military personnel are highly professional individuals who join for all kinds of reasons. I would hate to pigeon-hole them - that would be unfair of me.

I can't speak for Finland's military though, obviously. If I lived in Finland I may have a different point of view.[/font]

[quote]If you thought that in a war situation I'd just sit tight and do nothing, you're mistaken. I'm a professional social care worker, so I'd be of much more use in taking care of children, old people, the disabled etc. than rotting in prison for not going to the battlefront. But unfortunately those in power don't see that, because they were all raised to be "true men".[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]And that's totally cool. I would hope nobody would argue against that.

After all, wars require more than soldiers - just look at the critical role of nurses during wartime. There are many famous nurses in Australia who surved during the world wars. They may not have held a gun, but they treated people at the battlefronts and took great personal risk. They are heroes too.

As I said, I could not presume to speak for Finland - if your military is all about jingoistic macho ideals...then yes, that's an issue. But I can safely say that I don't have the same concern about my country, thankfully.

Edit: And I, for one, do view this as a legitimate discussion.[/font]

[Horendithas]

[COLOR="Indigo"][quote name='Sandy']Well, why don't we all just shut up, then, with our poor discussion skills. That'll turn this board into a fun place. ;D[/QUOTE]Or just admit that sweeping generalizations got everyone off on the wrong foot.

Also, you seem to have the misperception that a discussion is only happening if people have opposing views. Not true.[/COLOR]

[Allamorph]

[quote name='Sandy']Well, why don't we all just shut up, then, with our poor discussion skills. That'll turn this board into a fun place. ;D[/quote]
[FONT=Arial]Naw, ain't that. Just, discussion can also be people discussing how they agree about things.

[I]Debate[/I] requires opposing viewpoints. And I just don't feel like a debate on this subject is worthwhile.
[quote name='James][font=franklin gothic medium']Edit: And I, for one, do view this as a legitimate discussion.[/font][/quote]
Far as I can tell, it always has been. (^_^)


[B]Edit:[/B] [COLOR=Indigo]Indi[/COLOR]!! For cryin' out loud! :p [[COLOR="Indigo"][SIZE="1"]Then get the hell out of my mind already![/SIZE][/COLOR]]

I mean, jays.[/FONT]

[Sandy]

[quote name='indifference'][COLOR="Indigo"]Also, you seem to have the misperception that a discussion is only happening if people have opposing views. Not true.[/COLOR][/QUOTE]

Not opposing, but [I]different[/I] views. I don't think there's much of a discussion when people talk about how much they agree with each other. ;D At least that discussion won't go anywhere.

I dare say I'm not the only one in this thread - let alone on this forum - who has used exaggeration as a means to get the discussion a kick. As long as people don't go personal insults, I'd say there's nothing wrong with a little provocation. ;D

And to Allamorph: yes, that smiley was one. ;P

[Allamorph]

[quote name='Sandy']I dare say I'm not the only one in this thread - let alone on this forum - who has used exaggeration as a means to get the discussion a kick. As long as people don't go personal insults, I'd say there's nothing wrong with a little provocation. ;D[/quote]
[FONT=Arial]Debate for the purpose of debate seems to me, again, a rather large waste of time. Plus, I don't take well to Devil's Advocates. But that's a personal problem, and I'm working on that.

By which I mean, I'm trying not to torture them for quite so long. I mean, it's just cruel, when you come down to it.

[QUOTE][I]And to Allamorph: yes, that smiley was one. ;P[/I][/QUOTE]
[I]You were still winking!![/I] :p


[B]Edit:[/B] Hah! First![/FONT]

[Horendithas]

[COLOR="Indigo"][B]Edit:[/B] You're still a [I]brat[/I] Allamorph.[quote name='Sandy']Not opposing, but [I]different[/I] views. I don't think there's much of a discussion when people talk about how much they agree with each other. ;D At least that discussion won't go anywhere.[/QUOTE]You're missing the point. Discussions where people [I]agree[/I] are what led to laws being formed in the first place, to peaceful co-existence. Which by the way means [I]no war[/I].

So what's wrong with getting practice or even finding people who agree with you? Why should they [I]only[/I] discuss things where their views are different? You're still hung up on the idea that it has to be [I]different[/I] or [I]opposing[/I] for it to be a discussion and that's just not true.

Those kind of discussions have enormous potential and you're missing that point. [/COLOR]